SAAFE forum
General Category => Politics and academic/media queries => Topic started by: Dexi Delite on 24 March 2017, 08:32:27 pm
-
Has anyone seen this? And what are your thoughts regarding it's possible impact on our websites and advertising?
If I'm not allowed to post this then please remove
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2016-17/digitaleconomy.html
[link replaced with one more appropriate]
-
I've replaced the URL for the one containing the actual bill information rather than what I assume was a blog, or whatever. That way anybody interested can read it and form their own opinion assuming they (unlike me) have time :)
-
Thanks Amy. xx
-
Is this likely to affect us?
-
Yes. Any website that contains adult content, whether it's soft porn pictures or written content will be effected. This doesn't just include porn sites, but could also include the likes of Amazon who sell erotic literature, Ebay, Google, Facebook/twitter (there is a plethora of pictures on there that the government may deem soft porn, not to mention some of the conversations that we adults have on there), Adult work, and many of the other sites that we ladies advertise on, companies that sell sex toys etc.
As we're part of the sex industry then no doubt we will be forced to bring in a verification systemon our own websites to prove that our viewers are over 18.
The government has yet to decide what they deem as adult content yet, but they are ignoring the opposition, and are trying to push the bill through, which could be a huge problem for many. There is a petition by 38 Degrees asking for people to write to their MP (they even write out the email for you so you don't have to). Just search for the Digital Economy Bill by said group. (Moderators, apologies if I've broken any rules here, as I'm not sure if I am allowed to post up the link for this petition. If so, then please modify. Many thanks).
Considering large companies like Tesco's and Talk Talk cannot even secure their own customers private information without getting hacked, what chance have the rest of us got.
-
I've just had a read through the relevant section of the proposed bill - for those interested, it's in "Part 3 ? Online pornography"
Immediate takeaways:
- The proposals relate ONLY to video. There is no mention of still photos, webcam, or written erotica.
- There is quite a firm definition of what constitutes porn, which largely relies on whether the film would be given an 18 or 18R rating if assessed by the BBFC. The good old "that it was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal" is trotted out.
- There is provision for an "Age Verification Regulator" to be funded by the government, which means that any website owners who provide pornography online would be required to provide some sort of evidence that they do make checks on the age of consumers. The method for doing that has been left completely open.
- The Regulator can fine someone who isn't making sufficient checks to a maximum of ?250k, OR 5% of the individual/business's annual turnover.
OK so this is the most important bit:
The regulator only has powers over what is called a "relevant person"
The bill defines this as
(3) A ?relevant person? is?
(a) an internet service provider, or
(b) a person who the age-verification regulator believes to be involved, or
to have been involved, in making pornographic material available on
the internet on a commercial basis to persons in the United Kingdom.
So - if you are showing nude pics on your website for free, this Bill won't affect you (in its current form - it's possible there might be more amendments.)
If you are making movie clips and selling them via AW or Clips4Sale, this Bill won't affect you as it is the host website's responsibility to do the age checks. AW already does this, I know for certain, not sure about other sites.
If you sell movie clips via your own website, then you would be responsible for doing age checks and this Bill would affect you. (It's possible a simple solution such as only selling content via a credit card would be sufficient, but at this time the Bill doesn't specify how checks should be made.)
-
Most of the Bill does seem to apply to videos. However, this is the bit that I find disconcertingly ambiguous:
?classification certificate? has the same meaning as in the Video Recordings Act 1984 (see section 7 of that Act);
?material? means?
(a)
a series of visual images shown as a moving picture, with or without sound;
(b)a still image or series of still images, with or without sound;
I fear that once/if this gets passed then there will be, (undoubtedly, given our government's ability to fuck people over) 'mission creep' (like the 'anti-terror Bill) into other areas of the porn/adult industry. I think this needs to be addressed at this stage - and not wait until it is too late.
-
I very briefly watched the Parliament channel last night and they were aiming to get all ISP's to have adult settings turned to OFF by DEFAULT and if you wanted them ON you had to contact the ISP direct.
This was so children do not see so much pornography online so easily at home etc.
-
I very briefly watched the Parliament channel last night and they were aiming to get all ISP's to have adult settings turned to OFF by DEFAULT and if you wanted them ON you had to contact the ISP direct.
This was so children do not see so much pornography online so easily at home etc.
Several ISPs are already do that and I think most of the mobile networks do.
-
Yep, Sky (re)activated their broadband Shield last week, and I had to log on to choose to see 18+ content.
-
Several ISPs are already do that and I think most of the mobile networks do.
And so they have for years. Here's a previous thread http://www.saafe.info/main/index.php?topic=16359.0 (http://www.saafe.info/main/index.php?topic=16359.0) :)